G.R. No.

194884 | October 22, 2014

IMASEN PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION , Petitioner

vs.
RAMONCHITO T. ALCON AND JOANN S. PAPA , Respondents

A. Summary of the case

Petitioner Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation is a domestic corporation

engaged in the manufacture of auto seat-recliners and slide-adjusters. It hired the
respondents as manual welders in 2001.

Respondents working on their shift were caught by Altiche, company’s security guard,
having sexual intercourse at the "Tool and Die" section on the floor, using a piece of
carton as mattress. Altiche immediately went back to the guard house and relayed what
he saw to Danilo S. Ogana, another security guard on duty. Ogana went to the "Tool and
Die" section and saw several employees, including the respondents, already leaving the
area. He noticed, however, that Alcon picked up the carton that Altiche claimed the
respondents used as mattress during their sexual act, and returned it to the place where
the cartons were kept. Altiche then submitted a handwritten report. Imasen then issued
memorandum requiring respondents to submit individual explanations claiming that
they were merely sleeping in the "Tool and Die" section at the time of the incident. They
also claimed that other employees were near the area, making the commission of the
act charged impossible.

Imasen, thereafter, conducted a hearing for the administrative charge against them and
subsequently issued the respondents separate interoffice memoranda terminating their
services. It found the respondents guilty of the act charged which it considered as "gross
misconduct contrary to the existing policies, rules and regulations of the company."

The respondents filed before the LA the complaint for illegal dismissal. The respondents
maintained their version of the incident.

B. Labor Arbiter/ NLRC ruling

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the respondents' complaint for lack of merit. The LA found
the respondents' dismissal valid, i.e., for the just cause of gross misconduct and with due
process. The LA gave weight to Altiche's account of the incident, which Ogana
corroborated, over the respondents' mere denial of the incident and the
unsubstantiated explanation that other employees were present near the "Tool and Die"
section, making the sexual act impossible. The LA additionally pointed out that the
respondents did not show any ill motive or intent on the part; of Altiche and Ogano
sufficient to render their accounts of the incident suspicious.

The NLRC dismissed the respondents' appeal for lack of merit. In affirming the LA's
ruling, the NLRC declared that Imasen substantially and convincingly proved just cause
for dismissing the respondents and complied with the required due process.
C. Court’s ruling

The Court finds that NLRC legally correct and well within its jurisdiction when it affirmed
the validity of the respondents' dismissal on the ground of serious misconduct.

Except as limited by special law, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own
judgment and discretion, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments,
working methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be
followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, worker
supervision, layoff of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers. As a
general proposition, an employer has free reign over every aspect of its business,
including the dismissal of his employees as long as the exercise of its management
prerogative is done reasonably, in good faith, and in a manner not otherwise intended to
defeat or circumvent the rights of workers.

The just causes for dismissing an employee are provided under Article 282 (now Article
296) of the Labor Code. Under Article 282(a), serious misconduct by the employee
justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment. For misconduct or
improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur:
(a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the
employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for
the employer;32 and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.

Hence, sexual acts and intimacies between two consenting adults belong, as a principled
ideal, to the realm of purely private relations. Whether aroused by lust or inflamed by
sincere affection, sexual acts should be carried out at such place, time and circumstance
that, by the generally accepted norms of conduct, will not offend public decency nor
disturb the generally held or accepted social morals. Under these parameters, sexual
acts between two consenting adults do not have a place in the work environment.

Indisputably, the respondents engaged in sexual intercourse inside company premises

and during work hours. These circumstances, by themselves, are already punishable
misconduct. Added to these considerations, however, is the implication that the
respondents did not only disregard company rules but flaunted their disregard in a
manner that could reflect adversely on the status of ethics and morality in the company.

Additionally, the respondents engaged in sexual intercourse in an area where co-

employees or other company personnel have ready and available access. The
respondents likewise committed their act at a time when the employees were expected
to be and had, in fact, been at their respective posts, and when they themselves were
supposed to be, as all other employees had in fact been, working.

D. Labor Code

Art. 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this
Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
 backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement. (As amended by Section 34, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)

Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any
of the following causes:

a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders

of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative;

d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his

employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representatives; and

e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

E. Opinion/Analysis

Our Philippine Constitution, laws and jurisprudence ensures that all labor shall have the
right of security of tenure. This right guarantees every individual that they can only be
validly terminated from service only for a valid cause supported by substantial evidence
and after due process or after the workers are afforded the opportunity to be heard and
to present their defense.

However, this right of the workers does not mean that our laws authorize the oppression
or self-destruction of the employer. As this constitutional guarantee does not mean that
all labor disputes shall be decided in favor labor. The constitutional and legal protection
equally recognize the employer's right and prerogative to manage its operation
according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play.

Management prerogative, on the other hand, is the power of the management to

discipline, dismissal and recall of their own workers. As discussed, as s long as the
exercise of its management prerogative is done reasonably, in good faith, and in a
manner not otherwise intended to defeat or circumvent the rights of workers.

Hence, providing labor the right of security of tenure and giving the employers
management prerogative, though conflicting and placed on opposite ends, shall be
exercised in consideration and without prejudice to each other.